Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Smith (Home and Away)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Smith (Home and Away)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable character. Unreferenced, and only two sentences long with an infobox. Needs to be deleted and/or upmerged to another Home and Away-related article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Improve In it's current state, the topic does not show it need its own page, however it can be changed. JDDJS (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep now it has sources, so it's probably notable but I'm not really sure because I don't live in Australia. JDDJS (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the size of the relevant category, it appears likely that many characters from the series are consensus-notable. In the absence of any argument otherwise by the nominator, I see no reason to conclude that a 6-year-running character isn't similarly notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notabality isn't determined by a bad article being around for years; it's determined by references. There are no references to prove notability. The article almost certainly fails the notability criteria for soap opera characters. Though the character was on the show for six years, we have no evidence to indicate in what context. There had been [previous AFD a couple of years ago], but it was closed because an editor had nominated 140 pages at once (despite this, many editors had still voted delete, and there was no prejudice against renomination) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely lacks any sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I absolutely despise shows like Home and Away and think that many of the character stubs that are created about shows like this should be merged into a list. However, this character is not one of them; it would easily be one of the most notable characters in the show's history. Also, the fact that the article is unreferenced is irrelevant, especially when a google news archive search for "Hayley Smith" gives two hits in the first ten about this character. Bec Cartwright's portrayal of this character won her a Logie Award for Most Popular Actress in 2005 and she was also nominated for a Gold Logie that same year. Do a google news archive search for Hayley Smith + Bec Cartwright and you get four pages of results that could all be used as references in this article. Here are another 21 articles from the Fairfax Media archives that are all reliable third party publications. They could also be added to the article. I would echo JDDJS's call of improve and must admit that I'm struggling to assume good faith about this nomination, as it seems that WP:BEFORE was not carried out and that the attempt to get this article deleted is just the nominator trying to get his/her own way at Talk:Hayley Smith (American Dad!)#Requested move 2011. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude; I nominated the article because it was in terrible shape, and had been that way for years. I have a solid argument for the American Dad move regardless of whether this article is kept or not Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 07:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, did you honestly make a good faith attempt to reference the article before sending it to AfD? Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have added five or so refs to the article from major Australian and New Zealand newspapers. Still a stub, but I think it proves the notability. Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is notable for the reasons set out by Jenks24. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are half dozen helpful references added, as result of this discussion. Yamaguchi先生 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.